What is the purpose of the Prime Directive?

[Triskelion]

Well it's been 2 weeks since I posted this and so far no takers:

If you will, a little thought experiment:

Hello, I am the galaxy. My name is Fred, actually.

You are the captain of a Federation starship that encounters the following planets. What do you do?

1. Hypoxia
A planet is choked with carbon emissions and has evidence of civilization on all four continents, but now is only populated in the corner of one city. Communications are being actively blocked by technological interference. Most of the emissions are coming from automated factories all over the planet. You cannot get to the people, who seem to be fortified under a mountain.

You have an energy beam that can scoop up all that carbon in one day's time, but you have to deliver some medical supplies to plague victims and your rendezvous is in a day and a half. So it's now or never.


2. New Floridia
Another planet is full of people whose life span has been reduced to half of what it once was. Your Chief Medical Officer has a simple vaccination.


3. The Celestial Seat of All Empire in the Universe
Here's a planet with a medieval astronomer who discovered your ship in orbit. He is convinced you are a holy doomsday weapon conjured from the nation across the channel. The palace guard has been doubled, and all the guards have double-sided poleaxes. Which one of your crew do you beam down to discuss it with him? The nations then start the war they have been preparing for for seven centuries. What do you do? (hint: kicking over the anthill is not an option)

4. Earth
And finally, due to a time hiccup you find yourself in orbit of planet Earth, fifty years ago. Several nations have detected your ship and are arming nuclear weapons for war. What do you do?


Now go forth intrepid captains, and act on your moral obligations.

I can only guess it means that either the post was TL;DR, or that it's a hell of a lot easier to question others' actions than it is to live up to the "clear moral obligation". To cast blame in the 20/20 of hindsight than put your own neck on the line for a problem in front of you.

So here are the results:

You, as captain, have washed your hands of these situations and have done nothing. (Since no one else did anything, you had no one to accuse and thereby assert your moral superiority without a suitable scapegoat).

1. Hypoxia
The Hypoxians' plan to terraform the planet by introducing carbon greenhouse gases from automated factories is going along to plan. The atmosphere is warming enough to sustain life. Evacuation of their dying planet Walmartia is proceeding at pace. The explorer scientists under the mountain have successfully beaten the clock and the planet's terraformation will now occur within the time span allowed for evacuation of their colony to Hypoxia. Your inaction, while subjecting you to great criticism at home by the morally righteous, has saved their race's one chance for survival.

2. New Floridia
Your inaction on this planet has assured that the population of this planet does not exceed its resources to self-sustain. The lifespan of the individual naturally decreased from 500 years to 250, when the ecosystem made an adjustment to a mass extinction 2500 years prior, and the hunted-out longevity-providing food sources were substituted. Your inaction has saved this civilization and assured that future generations do not decimate their renewable resources through unregulated markets and cultural value of the hunter's machismo.

3. The Celestial Seat of All Empire in the Universe
The next day after your ship departed, the people began to doubt what they had seen, and calmed down. Furthermore, coming so close to the brink has caused them to reconsider their traditions of hate and enact a peace which would alter their futures forever.

Which is fortunate because had anyone beamed down they would have been immediately decapitated and infected with the planet's worst undetectable sleeper virus imaginable - a disease you would have suffered, should you have beamed their remains back aboard. But since modern medicine had yet to be invented, the locals would not be able to warn you. Had you beamed down, you would have introduced a microbe to this unique ecosystem that would have flourished, and in 2000 years, killed every living thing on the planet's surface. Your decision not to beam down before fully analyzing the ecosystem has saved not only this race, but your own civilization and every civilization they would come into contact with. In twenty years, the astronomer's daughter will effectively wipe out the disease when she cures a minor ailment with an antibiotic that creates a mutated strain of benign virus that dominates the harmful one. Unfortunately, the portable music player is never invented and that is directly your helmsman's fault.

4. Earth
Your hasty departure has created a lot of conflict but averted war. Had you stayed one more hour the missiles would have launched. You have prevented WWIII and preserved most of the timeline. However your cat was never born and disappears in a puff of logic.

Congratulations captains! Your moral uncertainty has saved the day!

So the lesson here is, it's a lot easier to accuse others of moral offenses than it is to put one's own neck on the line. Unfortunately, Starfleet Captains don't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines. They are responsible for all that happens by default.

IMO that's an argument for the Prime Directive. Refuse them that responsibility. Bad things will happen either way - better to restrict the official mandate of your organization, than to leave it up to arbitrary personal judgments. After all you are an official institution, and you have to establish clear policies. Otherwise your captains are going to stir up a lot of random problems, and by what mandate could any civilization allow this? Only one which refuses to self-examine.

As a captain, you are not the moral authority. Your job is to represent an authority, not assume it. As such you must divest yourself of your own morality and act in accordance to the morality of your organization, Starfleet. You don't have the luxury of indulging yourself. You don't have the mandate to follow your personal code of conduct. Captaincy is your office, not your divine right.

 

[The Castellan]

I always felt the PD was more of a zero-tolerance policy...as in there's zero thinking. Stargate has the same problems

And it always reminds me of NASA's infamous Brookings Report, which I HATE with passion, and I hope the entire Brookings people are toasting on the fires of hell. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that aliens, or the evidenve of alien life, for any culture, will cause people to go insane and kill each other.

And like that guy on Stargate, who tried to make everything public, "If humanity destroys itself, because it can't handle the fact of other life out there, than humanity (or any species for that matter) deserves to be destroyed." I say let the ones who can't handle it do their suicides and let the people who's brains actually work celebrate and prepare for an exciting future.

 

[DevilEyes]

Well it's been 2 weeks since I posted this and so far no takers:

If you will, a little thought experiment:

Hello, I am the galaxy. My name is Fred, actually.

You are the captain of a Federation starship that encounters the following planets. What do you do?

1. Hypoxia
A planet is choked with carbon emissions and has evidence of civilization on all four continents, but now is only populated in the corner of one city. Communications are being actively blocked by technological interference. Most of the emissions are coming from automated factories all over the planet. You cannot get to the people, who seem to be fortified under a mountain.

You have an energy beam that can scoop up all that carbon in one day's time, but you have to deliver some medical supplies to plague victims and your rendezvous is in a day and a half. So it's now or never.


2. New Floridia
Another planet is full of people whose life span has been reduced to half of what it once was. Your Chief Medical Officer has a simple vaccination.


3. The Celestial Seat of All Empire in the Universe
Here's a planet with a medieval astronomer who discovered your ship in orbit. He is convinced you are a holy doomsday weapon conjured from the nation across the channel. The palace guard has been doubled, and all the guards have double-sided poleaxes. Which one of your crew do you beam down to discuss it with him? The nations then start the war they have been preparing for for seven centuries. What do you do? (hint: kicking over the anthill is not an option)

4. Earth
And finally, due to a time hiccup you find yourself in orbit of planet Earth, fifty years ago. Several nations have detected your ship and are arming nuclear weapons for war. What do you do?


Now go forth intrepid captains, and act on your moral obligations.

I can only guess it means that either the post was TL;DR, or that it's a hell of a lot easier to question others' actions than it is to live up to the "clear moral obligation". To cast blame in the 20/20 of hindsight than put your own neck on the line for a problem in front of you.

So here are the results:

You, as captain, have washed your hands of these situations and have done nothing. (Since no one else did anything, you had no one to accuse and thereby assert your moral superiority without a suitable scapegoat).

1. Hypoxia
The Hypoxians' plan to terraform the planet by introducing carbon greenhouse gases from automated factories is going along to plan. The atmosphere is warming enough to sustain life. Evacuation of their dying planet Walmartia is proceeding at pace. The explorer scientists under the mountain have successfully beaten the clock and the planet's terraformation will now occur within the time span allowed for evacuation of their colony to Hypoxia. Your inaction, while subjecting you to great criticism at home by the morally righteous, has saved their race's one chance for survival.

2. New Floridia
Your inaction on this planet has assured that the population of this planet does not exceed its resources to self-sustain. The lifespan of the individual naturally decreased from 500 years to 250, when the ecosystem made an adjustment to a mass extinction 2500 years prior, and the hunted-out longevity-providing food sources were substituted. Your inaction has saved this civilization and assured that future generations do not decimate their renewable resources through unregulated markets and cultural value of the hunter's machismo.

3. The Celestial Seat of All Empire in the Universe
The next day after your ship departed, the people began to doubt what they had seen, and calmed down. Furthermore, coming so close to the brink has caused them to reconsider their traditions of hate and enact a peace which would alter their futures forever.

Which is fortunate because had anyone beamed down they would have been immediately decapitated and infected with the planet's worst undetectable sleeper virus imaginable - a disease you would have suffered, should you have beamed their remains back aboard. But since modern medicine had yet to be invented, the locals would not be able to warn you. Had you beamed down, you would have introduced a microbe to this unique ecosystem that would have flourished, and in 2000 years, killed every living thing on the planet's surface. Your decision not to beam down before fully analyzing the ecosystem has saved not only this race, but your own civilization and every civilization they would come into contact with. In twenty years, the astronomer's daughter will effectively wipe out the disease when she cures a minor ailment with an antibiotic that creates a mutated strain of benign virus that dominates the harmful one. Unfortunately, the portable music player is never invented and that is directly your helmsman's fault.

4. Earth
Your hasty departure has created a lot of conflict but averted war. Had you stayed one more hour the missiles would have launched. You have prevented WWIII and preserved most of the timeline. However your cat was never born and disappears in a puff of logic.

Congratulations captains! Your moral uncertainty has saved the day!

So the lesson here is, it's a lot easier to accuse others of moral offenses than it is to put one's own neck on the line. Unfortunately, Starfleet Captains don't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines. They are responsible for all that happens by default.

IMO that's an argument for the Prime Directive. Refuse them that responsibility. Bad things will happen either way - better to restrict the official mandate of your organization, than to leave it up to arbitrary personal judgments. After all you are an official institution, and you have to establish clear policies. Otherwise your captains are going to stir up a lot of random problems, and by what mandate could any civilization allow this? Only one which refuses to self-examine.

As a captain, you are not the moral authority. Your job is to represent an authority, not assume it. As such you must divest yourself of your own morality and act in accordance to the morality of your organization, Starfleet. You don't have the luxury of indulging yourself. You don't have the mandate to follow your personal code of conduct. Captaincy is your office, not your divine right.

Actually, I read your post at the time and soon realized that your examples, as you described them, were very unclear and that I needed to ask you for clarification and more info (for instance: 1. Hypoxia - have you already made contact with them? How far is your other destination from that planet? How far is the other nearest Starfleet ship? etc.; 2. Have you already talked to them about their problem? How do you know that the vaccine even works on them - or that it doesn't have a negative effect? You can't know it, unless you've already conducted experiments of that kind - with their permission, hopefully? Did they ask you to provide help in that matter? 4. Wait, WHY are they launching missiles? At you, or at each other? Why would you cause them to attack each other? Surely they have enough intelligence about each other that they know your ship can't belong to the other side, since it hasn't got nearly that level of technology? If they are just attacking YOUR ship, not each other, than obviously all you have to do it GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE ASAP ) But then I pretty much forgot/gave up as the thread went into a different direction, and your examples were way too vague.

Turns out I was right not to bother, as your examples are incredibly contrived and focus on just one of the possible outcomes, and obviously specifically designed to support one particular point of view.

 

[Triskelion]

That's just it - any number of outcomes could have occurred, based on any number of factors, for which the captain would not have been informed. That is entirely the point. I could have just as easily posted that doing nothing resulted in the destruction of said civilizations. There was no way to know.

Which supports the argument, that the PD is in place as a guide when actually facing such diverse situations; it is remarkably easy to comment after the fact, or second guess what might have happened. A situation of a starship in orbit is nowhere near a situation of shouting out when someone is stepping into traffic.

Anyway DevilEyes I can tell you, no matter what questions may have been asked, they would not have been enough The outcome wasn't important. The assumption of having enough information to judge the moral choice was the fallacy this example was meant to lance.

In 10,000 years each of the above planets starts a war that ends all life in the galaxy. Was their survival just?

To answer that question is not Starfleet's purview or mandate. So - if you truly care about the planets' fates, you can't use your starship in an official capacity. You'd have to steal a shuttle a la Tom Paris and act without sanction - and risk being fired upon by your own people - and put the people who were loyal to you in that unenviable position - for a moral choice one really cannot aver is correct.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Well said, Triskelion.

Overall, this leads us to the final purpose of the Prime Directive: Starfleet isn't here to enforce morality, Starfleet is here to enforce Federation Policy.

 

[Sci]

^ Well said, Triskelion.

Overall, this leads us to the final purpose of the Prime Directive: Starfleet isn't here to enforce morality, Starfleet is here to enforce Federation Policy.

Or, if you're feeling cynical, Federation dominance.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But I'm not feeling cynical, especially since in my mind the Federation isn't USUALLY the dominant party in galactic politics. At least in the 23rd century I've always held to the interpretation that while in some ways superior to the Romulans, they were technologically inferior to the Tholians, the Klingons, the Gorn, and a variety of other races they occasionally competed with. Certainly their contact with the First Federation was a humbling experience to say the least, and the continued existence of the First Federation--in addition to its continued non-mention in later Trek--is probably their own version of the Prime Directive keeping them from interfering (or, if you're feeling cynical, protecting their dominance) in other world's affairs.

In TNG years, there's the Tamarians, the Breen, the still-powerful but (arguably) no longer superior Klingons, the more-powerful-than-before Romulans, the Borg, the Dominion, the Sheliak, and various other races that are implied as being at least on par with the Federation in terms of strategic power. It at least implies that whether you think the Federation wants to be the king of its particular hill, it is still surrounded by other hills with other kings who can challenge them any day of the week. In that interpretation, there is no room for cynicism: the Federation does not interfere with less developed races, and by the same token prefers not to be interfered with by superior ones.

 

[Chrisisall]

In Earth's history - every time there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization AND the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture, this less developed culture benefitted from the contact.

Simplify much?

 

[Triskelion]

They turned me into a newt!

(I got better).

 

[Chrisisall]

They turned me into a newt!

(I got better).

Appropriate.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

In Earth's history - every time there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization AND the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture, this less developed culture benefitted from the contact.

Simplify much?

Actually, NO.
But you're free to prove the contrary - by coming up with examples, showing they actually EXIST.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm confused... Proto, are you asking HIM to come up with examples to prove YOUR unbelievably oversimplified claim? Because, I mean, I can't think of many examples where this has been the case. Other than the fact that for any two cultures that have contact with each other one of them is always superior to the other... but that fact boils down to "Everyone who doesn't hate you might be friendly."

In FIRST contact scenarios, this cannot even be said to be the case unless the disparity in capability is more easily mitigated (say, military but not cultural, or cultural but not scientific, or scientific but not military) in which case it is first contact between near-equals. The end of Japanese isolationism in the Meiji Era would qualify, for example. OTOH, the end of isolationism lead to the foundation of the Japanese Empire, which seventy years later turned out to be a very BAD thing for the entire female population of Nanking...

Score another point for the Prime Directive intending to mitigate the unintended consequences of contact.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

newtype_alpha, I was very clear in my previous post - I asked for examples where "there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization, the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture AND this less developed culture DID NOT benefitted from the contact."

About the end of japanese isolationism - I don't agree with your statements.
Between the Japan of that time and the USA of that time, there was a HUGE cultural, military and scientific gap.
USA militaristically FORCED Japan to open up - but didn't actually try to destroy its social institutions. That was all Japan needed to greatly profit from the encounter.
Japan became a great power in 70 years - I'd say that was pretty beneficial to Japan.
Look at Japan today - one of the great economic/political powers of the world - again, Japan profitted greately from its interactions with other cultures.

 

[Chrisisall]

Proto, most "first contacts" in history have been about thievery. Resources. It wasn't to seek out new civilizations, it was to seek out new gold, new free manpower, to boldly plunder where no one has...before.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Proto, most "first contacts" in history have been about thievery. Resources. It wasn't to seek out new civilizations, it was to seek out new gold, new free manpower, to boldly plunder where no one has...before.

Yes, many were. And THAT'S WHY many of them ended in the near-destruction of the weaker (militarily) civilization.

But some of them were not about conquest and theft. In these cases, the weaker civilization endured just fine. When the contact was prolonged, this civilization benefitted from this contact. Cultures are adaptable - they have to be in order to be viable. Change is in their VERY NATURE.

Star Trek's assumption that a civilization will self-destruct if contact with it is made is just...nonsense.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

newtype_alpha, I was very clear in my previous post - I asked for examples where "there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization, the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture AND this less developed culture DID NOT benefitted from the contact."

I once asked someone to find me a three-legged tiger with astigmatism and a peanut allergy that DID NOT taste like chicken. I suppose that means three-legged half blind peanut-hating tigers really do taste like chicken...

About the end of japanese isolationism - I don't agree with your statements.
Between the Japan of that time and the USA of that time, there was a HUGE cultural, military and scientific gap.

Indeed. The cultural gap was largely in Japan's favor. Militarily and scientifically, not so much.

USA militaristically FORCED Japan to open up - but didn't actually try to destroy its social institutions. That was all Japan needed to greatly profit from the encounter.

Actually, what Japan needed to prosper was the presence of strong social institutions dynamic enough to assimilate new ideas and new changes while still remain natively "Japanese" in some meaningful sense. It is these same social institutions that allowed Japan to remain relatively sovereign and intact after having the crap bombed out of them by the United States eighty years later (other cultures probably wouldn't have fared so well).

This, in essence, is because Japan was culturally superior to the United States at the time: their institutions and traditions were firmly established and robust enough--it turned out--to survive utter military conquest and two atomic bombs. Elsewhere, there are cultures that degenerate into civil war every other election year.

 

[Triskelion]

While useful, it would be easy for the discussion to get off track regarding Earth history; comparing our past and current cultural issues don't necessarily apply to the future Federation of Star Trek, where generalized motives and attitudes markedly differ from contemporary standards.

There are more cultural relationships than mere dominance and accommodation. There are rejection, compromise, and integration (if not more in the future). I would say the Federation strives mostly for the latter model; waiting for global cultures to become fully realized before introducing such an influential meta-cultural relationship as an interstellar civilization with a common civic identity. Unrealized planets such as Kespritt are rejected for membership, while disputed ones like Bajor are seriously evaluated before simply welcomed or occupied.

The integration model reflects the American value of "melting pot" - a stew in which each culture is cultivated as an independent ingredient in a greater mix; fully itself, yet contributing to a larger body of interest that doesn't define them, indeed is defined by them. Perhaps a whole new flavor emerges. But those planets which know only dominance can see only dominance from above.

"The river tells no lies; still the dishonest man stands on the shore, hearing only lies."

"If you compare yourself with others you will be vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser others than you".

If membership in the Federation was compulsory there would be an argument for it being a kind of empire. But last I heard membership was entirely voluntary - and arrived at purely through the legal channels of candidate worlds with a clear representative government that truly did speak for a united society. It's simply unreasonable to call a democratically-arrived at decision to join the Federation a kind of cultural domination or imperialism. The Klingon Empire were not integrated into the Federation, though the Fed was in a position to attempt it. Why? Because empires don't belong in a democratic and free society. The Federation isn't blind. It too chooses very carefully before committing to a two-way relationship of a world.

Lastly I think that it's up to the arguer to figure that out and stop making blanket accusations that a democratic peace-valuing society, by dint of being in the majority, is imperialistic. There is a difference between empire and democratic majority. Google it.

Personally I get a bit tired of arguments accusing Star Trek of espousing the opposite values it actually does. Such sensationalism is more designed to serve the strident accuser than the actual commonwealth. I guess when people feel powerless they turn to destruction and accusation, rather than shouldering the burden of true egalitarian contributions.

It's just a lot easier to be a victim, and to have an unassailable entitlement for self-service, than to voluntarily contribute to the greater good.

Ideologically, the power of the Federation lies embedded in each individual, who have by and large voluntarily committed to a greater good. The power of the Federation does not impose compulsory morality or State authority, or military power upon powerless collectives. (I'm sure one could cherry pick exceptions but I'm focusing on the basic guiding principle).

I really don't wish to argue that black is white and up is down. Although I'm sure if one were strident enough it could be proven.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."
"When you point at someone you have three more fingers pointing back at you."
"Don't worry about the splinter in your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own."
"Methinks thou dost protest too much."

 

[Sci]

This, in essence, is because Japan was culturally superior to the United States at the time: their institutions and traditions were firmly established and robust enough--it turned out--to survive utter military conquest and two atomic bombs. Elsewhere, there are cultures that degenerate into civil war every other election year.

And this is my problem with most ways the Prime Directive are framed: They're based on the a priori assumption that some cultures are superior to others.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Depends on how you make a value judgment on cultures, though, doesn't it? Superior/inferior is being measured (in my example) in terms of overall integrity and coherence. Japanese culture can be considered "superior" in this case simply because the mechanisms fundamental to its stability are quite solid and it can therefore survive cataclysmic upheavals like open contact with Europeans and a series of devastating bomb attacks. Germany, arguably, has similar features that allowed it to survive the near-total devastation that followed WWII. That some semblance of order could be restored to these regions indicates a kind of cultural/social maturity that would probably survive and even thrive contact with an alien race. Hell, even North/South Korea are cohesive enough to still maintain some modicrum of order even in the worst of times. Now compare this to the social structure of, say, Haiti or Sudan or Pakistan, all of which are occasionally prone to instability and upheaval at relatively minor provocations (usually triggered by their own manias).

If cultures can be compared to people, this is basically the difference between a mature well-adjusted person with a mind open to new experiences, and an insecure maladjusted person with a fragile ego and alot of growing o do. Though individuals in most cultures will run the entire spectrum from both extreme, the character of a culture OVERALL is usually a median score of its population's collective sanity.

That some culture can be "superior" or if you prefer "more advanced" or "more developed" than others is usually nothing inherent in that culture itself, but more in the conditions that spawned it. Sort of like how some children (we all know/knew at least one) whose fragile little psyches would implode like a cardboard submarine the instant someone tells them "No, you can't have any more candy."